BW Mooring consultation

[Sir Nibble]

Seems to me that BW would do better to extract their collective digit and get on with the job. Then perhaps there would be fewer people looking at privatisation with the attitude that "It couldn't be any worse".

[Big John]

I'm not making up fairy stories. Maybe you are the one that doesn't understand what is being said.

The petition is about the network being sold off.

Actually the property portfolio is not the canal network - it's the canal-side and other non-canal properties that BW uses as an income source to part-fund the waterways network, if the property investments are succcessful.

[Chris Pink]

it's the canal-side and other non-canal properties that BW uses as an income source to part-fund the waterways network, if the property investments are succcessful.

 

That you quote this reveals that you are not paying attention.

 

The canal system budget has to date bankrolled BW's property speculation not the other way around.

[Naughty Cal]

The petition is about the network being sold off It's not about trial moorings!

 

The petition maybe about the netweork being sold off. This topic isnt/wasnt

[magpie patrick]

That you quote this reveals that you are not paying attention.

 

The canal system budget has to date bankrolled BW's property speculation not the other way around.

 

I don't doubt you've got a set of suitably adapted figures that prove this, and I also don't doubt that SOME properties have been acquired, but much of BW's property portfolio is land they owned that was redundant and was earning them nothing. the fact it is "worth £500 million" is not the same as them paying £500 million for it. One problem has been that BW have been a tad too keen to maximise the value on occassion

 

And BW's maintenance budget wouldn't be enough to bankroll a chain of chip shops unless they spent all of it.

[ashanta]

The petition maybe about the netweork being sold off. This topic isnt/wasnt

 

What are you like! Thats what conversations do!

[Naughty Cal]

What are you like! Thats what conversations do!

 

So what you where attempting to say bore little/no resemblance to what the rest of us have been saying/discussing and you then argue that our opinions dont match.

 

They wont do we are discussing different matters.

[ashanta]

So what you where attempting to say bore little/no resemblance to what the rest of us have been saying/discussing and you then argue that our opinions dont match.

 

They wont do we are discussing different matters.

This is boring now

[carlt]

I dont know where your looking to sink a mooring but I will be very suprised that the land you are mooring on is not owned by someone.I can give you examples of many places o the SW coast where this has changed only in the past 10 years.

And I can list many free anchorages and locations where, apart from harbour dues, a mooring can be laid and it is free, including several areas on the South Coast.

 

Just because you haven't found any free moorings does not make me wrong

Edited November 26, 2009 by carlt

[Naughty Cal]

And I can list many free anchorages and, apart from harbour dues, a mooring can be laid and it is free, including several areas on the South Coast.

 

Just because you haven't found any free moorings does not make me wrong

 

He cant moan about free moorings though

[ashanta]

This is boring now

I am not saying your wrong what I am saying is there used to be far more opportinities to either sink a mooring or anchor in desirable locations. The activity of the crown estates, local councils and privateers in the last 15 years has significantly changed that. I didn't pay rent on my mooring (Exe) until it was imposed upon me in 1993. I Still have my boat and mooring and I, like everyone else, has accepted the charges. There were many places that you could anchor for free but are now charged by the harbour authorities. I still anchor for free in some places like Cawsands but some places like Salcombe or Falmouth you are charged when years back you wasn't. There are many anchorages away from the towns but where there are facilities there is nearly always a charge.

If BW has to give in to 3 party's then I believe we can expect similar situations where we could be charged for visiting desirable inland waterway locations.

[magpie patrick]

I am not saying your wrong what I am saying is there used to be far more opportinities to either sink a mooring or anchor in desirable locations. The activity of the crown estates, local councils and privateers in the last 15 years has significantly changed that. I didn't pay rent on my mooring (Exe) until it was imposed upon me in 1993. I Still have my boat and mooring and I, like everyone else, has accepted the charges. There were many places that you could anchor for free but are now charged by the harbour authorities. I still anchor for free in some places like Cawsands but some places like Salcombe or Falmouth you are charged when years back you wasn't. There are many anchorages away from the towns but where there are facilities there is nearly always a charge.

If BW has to give in to 3 party's then I believe we can expect similar situations where we could be charged for visiting desirable inland waterway locations.

 

Yes, parking used to be free as well, and driving into the centre of London, but too many people wanted to do it. Parking used to be free at hospitals, but is now charged for, under howls of protest (funny no one complained that there was a bus fare payable if you didn't have a car).

 

I can park my car in Brislington for free, but then it's five mile out of the city centre, not a fat lot of use really. City Centre, £15 a day thank you

[Chris Pink]

Yes, parking used to be free as well, and driving into the centre of London, but too many people wanted to do it. Parking used to be free at hospitals, but is now charged for, under howls of protest (funny no one complained that there was a bus fare payable if you didn't have a car).

 

I can park my car in Brislington for free, but then it's five mile out of the city centre, not a fat lot of use really. City Centre, £15 a day thank you

 

This is the silliest argument I have heard in a very long time. Completely potty.

 

Yes, parking is no longer free, yes, driving into london is no longer free, yes, parking in hospital car parks is no longer free.

 

and the result?

 

no-one does it any more do they Patrick? no one parks in central Bristol, the hospital car parks are empty, London is traffic free.

 

Nuts.

 

all it means, absolutely all it means, is that a bunch of thieves, laughingly called a government, are making millions.

 

That is, stealing millions from you and me.

 

and does that money go to improving the infrastructure? does it go to alleviate the problems?

 

no, it simply feeds a greedy and self-serving bureaucratic layer called 'parking services'.

 

and it favours the rich over the poor when considering access to those facilities but then that is the raison d'être of government so we can't really be surprised about that.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Chris Pink

[luctor et emergo]

This is the silliest argument I have heard in a very long time. Completely potty.

 

Yes, parking is no longer free, yes, driving into london is no longer free, yes, parking in hospital car parks is no longer free.

 

and the result?

 

no-one does it any more do they Patrick? no one parks in central Bristol, the hospital car parks are empty, London is traffic free.

 

Nuts.

 

all it means, absolutely all it means, is that a bunch of thieves, laughingly called a government, are making millions.

 

That is, stealing millions from you and me.

 

and does that money go to improving the infrastructure? does it go to alleviate the problems?

 

no, it simply feeds a greedy and self-serving bureaucratic layer called 'parking services'.

 

and it favours the rich over the poor when considering access to those facilities but then that is the raison d'être of government so we can't really be surprised about that.

 

 

Maybe not traffic free, but congestion charging has certainly made a difference. Compared to before, London is now much easier to get through.

[magpie patrick]

This is the silliest argument I have heard in a very long time. Completely potty.

 

Yes, parking is no longer free, yes, driving into london is no longer free, yes, parking in hospital car parks is no longer free.

 

and the result?

 

no-one does it any more do they Patrick? no one parks in central Bristol, the hospital car parks are empty, London is traffic free.

 

Nuts.

 

all it means, absolutely all it means, is that a bunch of thieves, laughingly called a government, are making millions.

 

That is, stealing millions from you and me.

 

and does that money go to improving the infrastructure? does it go to alleviate the problems?

 

no, it simply feeds a greedy and self-serving bureaucratic layer called 'parking services'.

 

and it favours the rich over the poor when considering access to those facilities but then that is the raison d'être of government so we can't really be surprised about that.

 

No, I think it's you that's potty, not me.

 

I take the train to work. Why? because I work in Bristol, where it costs £15 to park, but only £7 to take the train. Bristol couldn't cope if parking were free.

 

It's not that no one does it, it's that some don't do it because of the charge.

[mayalld]

This is the silliest argument I have heard in a very long time. Completely potty.

 

Yes, parking is no longer free, yes, driving into london is no longer free, yes, parking in hospital car parks is no longer free.

 

and the result?

 

no-one does it any more do they Patrick? no one parks in central Bristol, the hospital car parks are empty, London is traffic free.

 

Nuts.

 

all it means, absolutely all it means, is that a bunch of thieves, laughingly called a government, are making millions.

 

If nobody parks in central Bristol, the hospital car parks are empty and London is traffic free, how are they making millions?

[Chris Pink]

It's not that no one does it, it's that some don't do it because of the charge.

 

 

If you don't know why such 'rationing by price' as well as greasing the bureaucratic palm is one of the most socially divisive mechanisms in our country then I fear that my initial estimate of you as an intelligent man is sadly wrong.

 

A clue; if you ration by price then the use of wealth to gain access to facilities that produce more wealth greatly exaggerates income differential and its effect.

 

So the next time you moan about one of the end results of social disenfranchisement, maybe you could spend a few moments thinking these things through properly.

[magpie patrick]

If you don't know why such 'rationing by price' as well as greasing the bureaucratic palm is one of the most socially divisive mechanisms in our country then I fear that my initial estimate of you as an intelligent man is sadly wrong.

 

A clue; if you ration by price then the use of wealth to gain access to facilities that produce more wealth greatly exaggerates income differential and its effect.

 

So the next time you moan about one of the end results of social disenfranchisement, maybe you could spend a few moments thinking these things through properly.

 

I can see where you are coming from Chris, but the only way of not "rationing by price" is to have all such facilities free, as that is the only flat rate that is universally affordable. There are two problems with this, especially in the case of car parking which was my analogy.

 

First, there is a cost to provision, and this does increase with certain locations. In Midsomer Norton, where parking is free, land is of low value and the provision fairly basic, surface car parks with some lighting and no security provision. In Bristol, the parking is an eight deck multi-storey which is expensive to construct and maintain, needs lighting and CCTV (because multi-storey CPs have serious issues with crime) and occupies a site that could otherwise have a high rental yield, Leaving the yield out, who is to pay those construction and maintenance costs? The Bristol City council tax payer? Add in the yield, and the landowner would either expect recompense or close the car park until they got permission to do something else with it. Nationalising land would solve this one of course (something I once advocated as a student, but not any more).

 

Second, the alternative isn't free, giving a perverse incentive to use a system that costs the state a lot of money and creates traffic chaos: you can park for free but you must pay for the train? This also applies to the hospital situation: parking is free but bus travel isn't.

 

I know we are going way off topic, but several years ago I was working with a hospital in South Wales where there were complaints about car crime during visiting hours. One obvious answer was to provide CCTV, but that would have meant diverting funds from medical care. Charging, however was a political incendiary. We split the car park in two, one half pay and display with CCTV, one half free with no coverage. Hardly anyone used the free half.

 

With regards to mooring, except in particular unusual circumstances I don't think short term "visitor" moorings should be charged for and in any event such an approach is likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. However, some incentive is possibly needed to ensure that moorings where demand is high see a high turnover, a similar approach to car parking in urban areas, where those who wish to park all day are encouraged to park a little further out.

 

 

No, I think it's you that's potty, not me.

 

I take the train to work. Why? because I work in Bristol, where it costs £15 to park, but only £7 to take the train. Bristol couldn't cope if parking were free.

 

It's not that no one does it, it's that some don't do it because of the charge.

 

and Chris, if you quote the whole thing, you would see that I was using price as an example of persuading people to use more efficient alternatives, not as a means of banning people from Bristol

[Chris Pink]

With regards to mooring, except in particular unusual circumstances I don't think short term "visitor" moorings should be charged for and in any event such an approach is likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. However, some incentive is possibly needed to ensure that moorings where demand is high see a high turnover, a similar approach to car parking in urban areas, where those who wish to park all day are encouraged to park a little further out.

 

 

 

 

and Chris, if you quote the whole thing, you would see that I was using price as an example of persuading people to use more efficient alternatives, not as a means of banning people from Bristol

 

But that is the effect, hard to quantify but real nevertheless, access to Bristol is price limited (i find myself reluctant to start this discussion when you consider the amount of socio-political history to cover).

 

Personally I think that the 'rationing by market' that puts train and bus use beyond the reach of many (most?) much more divisive.

 

And i am struggling presently to come up with some answer to the dilemma you outline. WIthout self policing some disincentive to use visitor mooring will be imposed. Trouble is see, how do you know at casual glance whether the scruffy boat on a visitor mooring for a month is just some lazy fucker or a person having a real human tragedy. I think far more analysis needs to be done of the level of 'problem' as this is, to my mind, much exaggerated but i do see, as we all do, much abuse. I am just not prepared to give up my rights in order for BW to attempt, in a lazy way, to prevent that abuse.

[Lady Muck]

how do you know at casual glance whether the scruffy boat on a visitor mooring for a month is just some lazy f*cker or a person having a real human tragedy.

 

This. People are so quick to judge, sneering comments such as 'getting away with it.' Getting away with what exactly? From what I've learned from talking to boaters like this it is might possibly be a chronic problem with alcohol and desperate poverty caused by that.

 

At least the BW workers I have met do have a heart in cases like this, unlike some of the boaters who complain to them.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Lady Muck

[tomsk]

This. People are so quick to judge, sneering comments such as 'getting away with it.' Getting away with what exactly? From what I've learned from talking to boaters like this it is might possibly be a chronic problem with alcohol and desperate poverty caused by that.

 

At least the BW workers I have met do have a heart in cases like this, unlike some of the boaters who complain to them.

 

 

Hear, hear.... About time a little humanity was applied to the percieved problems.

[magpie patrick]

This. People are so quick to judge, sneering comments such as 'getting away with it.' Getting away with what exactly? From what I've learned from talking to boaters like this it is might possibly be a chronic problem with alcohol and desperate poverty caused by that.

 

At least the BW workers I have met do have a heart in cases like this, unlike some of the boaters who complain to them.

 

 

I think that this may be the nub of the problem. I have spoken directly to BW senior managers (in one instance, a director) who have made a series of comments along the lines of attempting to persuade boaters to play the good guy and move, or who recognise difficulties. The director referred to one case where he had decided that there was no point in taking action against an elderly liveaboard boater who never moved and didn't have a licence. "We would be throwing him to social services, which he doesn't currently need, he'll end up in a care centre and sooner rather than later that will kill him". His view was that action would be taken when the boater became incapable of living on board safely and independently. The director did say (and I'm not naming him for this reason) that he wouldn't dare tell a member of the public this.

 

The problem is the public have two reactions. criticising the board for letting him get away with it or trying to get away with it themselves.

[Lady Muck]

I read the meeting minutes for a Lee and Stort user group meeting. The cruising club is complaining about 'mooring squats' up and down the rivers. BW explained that they don't move some boaters on for the reasons explained above. So the cruising club asks for names of all the boats concerned.

 

What do they need the boat names for? So they know who to look down on? I thought it was obvious which these boats were because they haven't moved for years. Can't we all mind our own business?

 

Needless to say Bw declined to provide them with a list.

[ashanta]

I read the meeting minutes for a Lee and Stort user group meeting. The cruising club is complaining about 'mooring squats' up and down the rivers. BW explained that they don't move some boaters on for the reasons explained above. So the cruising club asks for names of all the boats concerned.

 

What do they need the boat names for? So they know who to look down on? I thought it was obvious which these boats were because they haven't moved for years. Can't we all mind our own business?

 

Needless to say Bw declined to provide them with a list.

As in all cases there needs to be a balance. If somebody has problems as you describe there should be sympathy and understanding. I am aware of a couple of boats locally where boats are not moving for these very reasons. However, these boats are not taking up prime mooring facilities that have been identified for visitors. There are many opportunities for the needy to find a long term "positions" that would not restrict those that have paid for the use of the facilities.

More immportantly if large numbers of boats are illegally "squatting" then it makes a mockery of all of us who pay, not only our licence and insurance but additional mooring fees as we wish to be based in one place. If it is accepted that it's OK for these boats remain in situ for the cost of a licence then that is surely wrong. I do not believe these people (those sqatting as described) are necessary suffering hardship and in fact I belive that many have good jobs which is why they live where they do.

[Chris Pink]

. More immportantly if large numbers of boats are illegally "squatting" then it makes a mockery of all of us who pay, not only our licence and insurance but additional mooring fees as we wish to be based in one place. If it is accepted that it's OK for these boats remain in situ for the cost of a licence then that is surely wrong. I do not believe these people (those sqatting as described) are necessary suffering hardship and in fact I belive that many have good jobs which is why they live where they do.

 

Then there is a perfectly good law, the Waterways Act 1995 Section 17 that gives BW the mandate and powers to deal with such behaviour.

 

It is not an argument for new, unforceably, law that BW do not enforce the law they have.

 

And if you go very far down the road of the politics of envy then you risk making judgements about people that are based on prejudice rather than facts.